What's new
By:
Filters
Gamecock Fanatics

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

"Clemson spends approximately 42% of its athletics budget on the football program. USC 25%

FeatheredCock

FeatheredCock

“Let It Be”
Staff member
Messages
55,912
Fanatics Cash
65,804
Points
13,373
"Clemson spends approximately 42% of its athletics budget on the football program. USC, on the other hand, spends 25% of its budget on football."

But remember Gamecocks have a bigger revenue portion than Clemson so their 42% could equal to Gamecocks 25%, Still, Gamecocks need to do more, Stadium needs to be more Fan friendly. Do a lot for booster area need to take care of the regular joe like Bathrooms that work concession stands etc.  



8c15bc58-a6b4-4297-9a0b-33fa46cddeda-fixedmailman.jpeg


Opinion: Mired in mediocrity, Gamecock fans deserve better football, better AD



USC fan who works in finance says Athletic Director Ray Tanner is focusing on non-revenue sports at expense of football and fans are fed up.
www.independentmail.com







 
Just MHO: The money being directed at the program isn't the problem. Muschamp was a bad hire and while I am hopeful Shane can learn from his first year on the job, the jury is still out.

 
Swayin said:
Just MHO: The money being directed at the program isn't the problem. Muschamp was a bad hire and while I am hopeful Shane can learn from his first year on the job, the jury is still out.
Click to expand...
Agree 100%, its a shame that OC and DC like Clemson are making more money than Shane. Muschamp just was bad AD move by Tanner. Just cannot afford anymore mistake Tanner's got get this right. Hope we all see some offense in 2 weeks. 

 
Tanner is not an AD IMO.  I am not sure he knows how to manage and direct this large budget / bucket of money.  I still think he was a bad choice for AD.  Not many former coaches go directly from a coaching position to AD at Power 5 school and Tanner is an example as to why that does not work.

 
Its long past time some changes were made at the university. Start with the BOT. What we've donedoesn't work. At the same time, replace Ray with an AD who knows what he's doing (and structure things so that the BOT and university stay out of the athletic department. Then, do what the guy in this article suggests: put heavy focus into football and men's basketball. Spend the money for better coaches, better facilities, better recruiting. Then, when you have those programs where they should be, use some of the money they bring in to help non-revenue sports.

 
FeatheredCock said:
Its long past time some changes were made at the university. Start with the BOT. What we've donedoesn't work. At the same time, replace Ray with an AD who knows what he's doing (and structure things so that the BOT and university stay out of the athletic department. Then, do what the guy in this article suggests: put heavy focus into football and men's basketball. Spend the money for better coaches, better facilities, better recruiting. Then, when you have those programs where they should be, use some of the money they bring in to help non-revenue sports.
Click to expand...
What you are asking for won't - and can't - happen at a state university, bro. The governance there and at all these institutions is based on checks and balances put in place by state law- the BOT are the overseers of the president/chancellor and they report directly to the governor. No president can just decide to change the structure and overseeing /regulatory nature of the BOT. The BOT has regulatory oversight over every single dime in and out of the university for a reason ... and the idea of the university's governing body needing to stay out of athletics upends the whole reality that the athletics department is a part of a university where 30,000 students are going to get their education. They aren't there to support athletics, it's the other way around. Sometimes as fans it is easy to forget that. And you can't just devote all your money to a couple of men's revenue sports because of the realities of Title IX.

There is nothing wrong with the system we have (under what you describe above, who would ever have the authority to fire a crappy AD, for example). It's the same one in place when we won 33 games in three years. The amount of money we put towards football is not the issue, IMO. We just need to hire the right people and slowly build the program back up to where it was. Is Beamer the guy to do that? I hope so, because he's in charge, until the day comes when he isn't. And then I'll root for the next guy.

As always, JM2C.

 
Well that blows, you are right now that I you made me think what I wrote. Thanks to setting it straight Swayin.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top